At 09:40 09/11/2002 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:
>Going thru the critical comments
>
>(1) yes, I believe Guha agreed to have his name on this (am seeking
>explicit confirmation)
Cool
>(2) After the table in the 'RDF Schema Overview' section, you ask:
>[
>rdf:List? I'm not quites ure what you are doing here. Picking out the
>vocabulary from the older specs beforing adding in the new? Is that
>valuable?rdfs:Datatype
>]
>
>...I should have been clearer in my message on friday. That table is
>machine-generated from the RDFS namespace document. I asked for WG help in
>getting the text for the RDF/XML version correct first; I'll then rebuild
>the table.
Ok. Fair enough - the other stuff is below. I think I've been too hasty
with the thumbs down. Whew :) A brief note here to say its not yet
complete, maybe
>Regarding ordering, yes I just added in rdfs:Datatype in the prose after
>Property, and the new List stuff after the existing (and Recommended)
>container machinery. Unless someone is going to write a
>compare-and-contrast as to which is best used when, I'm happy with this.
>Are we depracating the old containers? I didn't think so.
>
>(3) 'rdf:_1, etc rdf:first, rdf:next, rdf:nil'
>see previous; when the definitions are done i'll rebuild the table.
>rdf:_1 ... is an interesting case. These are _not_ mentioned in the
>rdf/xml schema but I guess should be mentioned here. Also 'nil' is neither
>a class nor property, so doesn't fit in either table. I suggest adding a
>separate paragraph for the latter, and adding rdf:_1 by hand.
I think it could go with the table not being updated.
>(4) [[
>They are not self denoting. The class rdfs:Literal respresents the class
>of literal values such as strings and integers.
>]]
>You are correct. I caught this on paper but missed the edit. Will change.
>
>(5) "s/predicate/object/" Good catch. Will fix.
>
>
>Your other purple and green comments share a lot with my paper-based
>editorial notes which I didn't get to this week. I think the critical
>comments are fixable by monday;
Woohoo
>can't commit to getting to the other
>stuff.
Not needed for Monday.
>You've mostly flagged up broken things rather than missing stuff as
>'critical', yet below you talk about missing things. Is it mostly the
>(script-generated) summary table?
Yes. I hadn't twigged that the other bits were below. My apologies.
This is in better shape than I thought. I'm back online for a few
hours. How can I help.
I had trouble with CVS this morning, but it seems ok now.
Brian